Posted
by
kdawsonon Tuesday June 03, 2008 @02:01PM
from the software-wants-to-be-free dept.

Specter writes "The GPL version 3 is getting some attention in legal circles, especially as it relates to its interaction with proprietary software and patents. Edmund J. Walsh penned an article for Law.com discussing the GPLv3 and the risks it poses for hardware and software companies."

Yes, I could see that. He's not red, because he's not a communist. And he's not yellow either, because he's no coward. He's not blue, because he's not sad. He's not green, because he seems to have experience. Yes, I think "maroon" could be a good word for describing him.

Bugs Bunny isn't the only source of this term as an insult, however; besides its rather obsolete meaning in terms of descendants of runaway slaves, a "maroon" is someone isolated -- "marooned" as it were -- and can be used to refer to someone who is sheltered, who hasn't traveled, or who is simply closed-minded. So it's not just a synonym for "moron."

I disagree. I think this "maroon" isn't really telling people that "Open Source under GPLv3 is Bad" so much as he is telling people "Open Source doesn't mean what you think it means."

This is very evident in his opening paragraph: "Two recent events should give for-profit companies new reasons to re-evaluate the ways in which they use open source software as well as the extent to which they use it."

This is a "heads-up" to let people know that they need to be more careful with how they use other peoples' work. The GPLv3 doesn't change the fact that they should have been more careful before, but it does make abuse more risky. I think this is what Mr. Walsh is trying to point out.

The cumulative number of errors of fact plus the lack of clarity in the meaning of his main points make this a highly incendiary and misleading article. As little as I may like GPL3 for other reasons, he paints a herring quite red several times over. The cases he points to are much simpler than he'd make them sound. I found this article insulting on several levels. I hope I do not to have to educate too many readers mislead by it in the future.

Which errors of fact, in particular, are you speaking about? His article is pretty short on facts -- his point is so simple and obvious he really doesn't need many. But the ones I see are pretty dead on. In fact, he seems light years ahead of many software developers with his understanding of F/OSS based on this statement:

Open source software had its origins in the free software movement. By now, most open source users understand that free refers to freedom, not to price. The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users. You are not free to do whatever you want with the open source software and may find yourself in a legal fight if what you do restricts the freedom of the software.

Beyond that, his facts seem to be basically the following:

Companies that are violating the GPL are being rightfully sued for it and settling.

The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users

Of course, when he says "software" he really means "users," and when he says "users" he really means "developers," and that inaccuracy of terminology doesn't help him make his point clearly.

Of course, half the people talking about this issue make a similar mistake; there'd be a heck of a lot less argument about this sort of thing (as well as ancillary issues, such as why it doesn't make sense to argue that either the GPL or BSD license is "more free" than the other) if English didn't make it so hard to be precise.

Hmm... The vibe I got from the article was that the "heads up" was regarding the need for more lawyers. "This is scary stuff man, you better watch out... You don't even know! I mean, you'll need, like, twice the number of lawyers now!"

It reads like FUD, but not so much against open source as for pair-programming with a lawyer. The first clue was his assertion that open source == GPL v3.0.

The next legal fight could be an attempt to force release of proprietary server code due to some part of the output of the server constituting a "work" generated by open source components on the server.

Well, clearly not. A reading of the GPL will generally show that the 'output' of a program isn't covered by the license unless, say, the output of that program reproduces part of itself or another GPLed work, for example.

Companies are also required by the new GPL to license to others all patents they own or control related to open source software, even those not related to code they add to open source software, and even if they did not own the patents at the time they distributed the open source software. This provision applies whether that distribution is part of a conscious marketing strategy or a casual sharing with others outside the organization.

Complete FUD. FUD, FUD, FUD. The GPL's patent provisions only pertain to patents (whether currently existing, or existing in the future) that directly affect the particular software package conveyed. IOW, if Microsoft distributes the latest version of Samba, then it cannot subsequently sue the Samba developers or any recipients of the Samba code for patent infringement related to Samba.

Rather than "for profit companies", he most likely should have said "for profit software companies who want to use GPL'ed software as part of their software offering". The company that I work for is "for profit". It uses software, but does not develop it for sale or redistribution. So the fact that some of the software we use is GPL'ed is irrelevant.

I didn't make it past the first three or four paragraphs, but no PHB is going to read further either. Court cases over GPL violation show that you can't use open source software the way you please? If he thought that before he's a moron and probably a sociopath. And the article seems to go on in that vein.

Not only that, he goes on to basically color all open source software as GPL3 software later in the article. There is lots of BSD and other licensed software out there basically free for companies to take and use as they wish as long as they abide by simple rules like keeping the attribution.

Not only that, but he used the settlements of lawsuits from GPLv2 code to demonstrate what GPLv3 is doing to businesses. He also went on to imply that provisions of the Affero GPL were provisions of the GPL itself. Nothing in this article could be described as informed.

It was basically "I heard some things about the new GPL, and that there were some lawsuits about open-source code, so I'm going to write a definitive article explaining all the nuances and traps that businesses should be afraid of."

For example, implementing proprietary features on top of open source utilities to provide a low-cost computer-controlled product ("smart box"), and distributing a program on hardware that blocks execution of modified software, have proven to be contentious issues. Running commercial Web services using open source software without releasing source code has also caused consternation in some quarters.

That right there should tell you what you need to know about the guy's understanding of 1) the technical issues related to GPL software, and 2) the actual legal requirements of the GPL.

As far as the commercial web services part, there are certainly issue in this area that are not clear and are being raised.

The debacle last month with ExtJS proved this. They relicensed under GPLv3 and then began trying to demand money for a commercial license from everyone who used their javascript library in a commercial web site, stating that you cannot use their library in your website under the GPL unless you open source all of the code used to generate your website (html, css, js, and any server side code like PHP, Ruby, or Python).

Many people contacted the FSF over this issue, and the response was pretty much "we don't know the answer to that, the courts haven't decided it, and it would have to be decided on a case by case basis".

In my opinion it is 100% possible that a GPLv3 project will be able to get a court to rule that if you use open source software to power a web site then all of the source code that generates that web site must be open sourced. Again the FSF has NO ANSWER to this question.

ExtJS is a case where people want the developer mindshare of open-source development without actually releasing their code as open-source. They are trying trick after trick to avoid the implications of open-source development. Right now it's a weird interpretation of the GPLv3. Before that it was "we are releasing under the terms of the LGPL, but you aren't allowed to redistribute as LGPL because we aren't offering it as LGPL, just under the terms of the LGPL". Before that it was another trick. This doesn't mean the licenses in question aren't any good, it means they aren't acting in good faith.

Again the FSF has NO ANSWER to this question.

Of course the FSF has no answer to this question. Courts are the final authority when it comes to licenses. The same was true of previous incarnations of the GPL as well. The same is true of every other license. Until there is case law, it's all speculation.

The ExtJS example is somewhat special because since it is javascript you clearly distribute their software. That's not the case for your database software, or the software you use to generate your HTML pages. However, even if using ExtJS required that you distributed your code under the GPL that's only problematic if you actually distribute the software that runs your web site.

Basically this sort of thing is pretty old hat in the Free Software community. Lots of companies, including MySQL AB and TrollTech, have proffered interpretations of the GPL that are more stringent than what the FSF has said it believes is defensible in court. The purpose of these interpretations has generally been to encourage people doing proprietary development using the vendor's tools from using the GPL version of the tool.

Personally, I don't have a problem with these tactics. If your project has grown to the point where you are concerned that you might get sued for copyright infringement, you probably can afford a commercial license. Alternatively, you can always use someone else's software.

The point is that just because someone at a Free Software vendor says you need a commercial license doesn't necessarily make it true. It's in their best interest to stretch what the GPL requires. Don't expect the FSF to contradict what the commercial Free Software vendors say either. After all, the folks at the FSF would *love* to wake up and find that a court had ruled in ExtJS's favor. That would give the GPL even more power than it currently has, and it would further their goal of making Free Software ubiquitous.

Here's the history for those who don't want to follow the link. ExtJS has developed a JavaScript framework. They originally licensed as "LGPL", but with the added proviso that it was only for non-commercial use. Since the whole point of the LGPL is to allow commercial apps to link with it, this made little sense. Now they've gone to GPL3.0, only for non-commercial use, which is a little more honest about their intent.

distributing a program on hardware that blocks execution of modified software

That, right there, is pretty much the definition of the GPLv3. To sum up: GPLv3 means that the end-user should be able to execute modified software as though it were the original software.

That's all. The rest of the GPLv3 is just a bunch of (somewhat readable) legalese attempting to prevent loopholes around this. But the idea is the same, and I've no sympathy for a company who can't grasp at least that much.

I'm reading the Wikipedia article on the GPLv3 Criticism [wikipedia.org]. It has this to say:

"Whilst the GPL does allow commercial distribution of GPL software, the market price will settle near the price of distribution--near zero--since the purchasers may redistribute the software and its source code for their cost of redistribution. This could be seen to inhibit commercial use of GPL'ed code by others wishing to use that code for proprietary purposes--if they don't wish to avail themselves of GPL'ed code, they will have

What a load of fear mongering bull. News flash: if you don't obey a software license you could get sued. How does that make GPL software any more or less risky than the proprietary alternative?

Look at it this way, if you violate a proprietary license, you get sued and lose a bunch of money. If you violate the GPL, you get sued, and you have the option to settle and open the code, or lose a lot of money. Seems to me the GPL is the less risky option.

What stands out most to me is, after reading up on Ed Walsh's background, that he is extremely biased: His background, before getting his law degree, was in systems and software development. In his narrow view of the world, the only
for-profit companies are those that sell proprietary software. Any other "company" is just an end-user of software. So Walmart, Sears, Barnes & Noble, General Motors, Ford - all these companies, which may or may not use Open Source software for internal business
use which gives them an edge over their competition - simply aren't for-profit companies.

And the final straw? I had NoScript enabled in Firefox, and when I first went to Law.com to read the article, I got a 404 error message because scripting was blocked. The kicker? Law.com uses Apache Tomcat server - open source software
(albeit not GPL). Either Law.com knows better than Mr. Walsh, or is just too cheap to pay for a proprietary web server - can't afford their own dog food, eh?

What you forget is that one can license proprietary software and keep one's code closed.

The whole point of the article, which you completely managed to miss, is that if one uses GPLv3 software, one may very well have to open up one's code and hardware, which might result in loosing a lot of money.

The reason the GPLv3 seems less risky to you is because you are not trying to sell software and hardware that uses it.

It's another greedy lawyer. His real interest is in covering big business and ways to make sure this "OSS"is made incompatible with current patent law. Ultimately I'm sure he's got lobbyists in Washington pushing to get legislators to want to regulate open source anything and maybe even make it illegal.

This is obviously written from the perspective of "anti-free software."

"The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users." This is SO bogus and mis characterizes the whole point of the new GPL. The "freedom" is absolutely for the users, especially the end users. The restrictions quoted in the article have nothing to do with users, but everything to do with ISVs taking GPL software and screwing the users.

"Changes in the GPL impose other limits on the ability to leverage a proprietary position when open source is involved."

This is true, so, write it for yourselves then. Don't think you can capitalize on someone else's work and deny then the ability to capitalize on your modifications to their software, that isn't very fair.

I don't get what the issue is. If you want to develop closed source software, then so be it, however, don't take other's GPL code and try to close that off, that's theft. How hard is it for the reptilian lawyer brain to understand this very simple concept.

We even say what is needed to comply. But NOOO, they have to keep up with the FUD.

Last little bit:

"Edmund J. Walsh is a shareholder and a member of the electrical and computer technologies and the IP transactions groups at Wolf Greenfield."

This article is confused and makes all sorts of horrible assumptions. In short, the author seems to believe that the only way people make money off free software by adding "differentiating" proprietary software to it. Since the whole point of the GPL is to prevent people from making the software under its purview non-free, it shouldn't really be surprising, then, that the author finds it a huge pain in the neck. Personally, I'd say the license is a success, and I suspect a lot of the companies making money from GPLed software would agree with me.

You get paid for your time to write something useful for someone. Just like I do, I don't get royalties on any of the closed-source products at work, I just get paid for my time. Which does include some hacking on free software to suit our needs. And making sure that licenses are followed, and that GPL and similarly licensed code does not get combined with our proprietary code.If no-one wants that program enough to pay someone to write it, then it gets done by people who want to have that program more th

What a lousy, misleading article. He makes it clear upfront that he's talking about two separate things, but then he goes on to mix them together indiscriminately throughout the rest of the article. (1) If you build your business on GPL 2 software, you'd better read the GPL 2. People who don't are getting sued. (2) GPL 3 is different from GPL 2, and may be incompatible with some business models that GPL 2 is compatible with.

Re #1: Duh. Don't agree to a license without making sure you can abide by the license. Re #2: Similar duh, and it's relatively inconsequential because very little software is under GPL 3 so far. (The typical PHB reading this is probably not going to understand that GPL 2 doesn't automatically update GPL 3, but the article could easily leave you with the impression that it does.)

With the filing of court documents, a philosophical debate about the proper place for software in society has become a business dispute with the risk of substantial consequences.
Well, no, it's not a risk. A risk refers to something you can't predict. If you agree to a license and then violate the license, that's not a risk, that's intentionally shooting yourself in the foot.

For-profit companies using open source software should take notice
He talks about "for-profit" like this all through the article. That's stupid. The GPL doesn't discriminate between for-profit and not-for-profit use. Of course the people getting sued are all for-profit companies. Is this a surprise? A nonprofit probably wouldn't have any motivation to violate the GPL, and anyhow you don't usually pick people to sue who don't have money.

The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users. You are not free to do whatever you want with the open source software and may find yourself in a legal fight if what you do restricts the freedom of the software.
Huh? This is idiotic. Software doesn't have human rights. The GPL also doesn't place any restrictions on how software is used. In fact, you can use GPL'd sofwtware without even agreeing to the license. You only have to agree to the GPL if you want to modify the software and then redistribute it.

Any activity that leverages software for business advantage is likely to restrict the software's freedom
Hmm...say Joe's Garage uses Firefox and OpenOffice. Can anyone explain why that's likely to "restrict the software's freedom?" Or say Barnes and Noble runs Linux on their servers. Does that mean they're "likely to restrict the software's freedom?" What he really means is that if you try to violate the GPL by making OSS into proprietary software, you've got a problem. That's a lot narrower than "leveraging software for business advantage."

and the growing use of open source software by for-profit companies has been a growing irritant for free software advocates.
Oh, God, it just gets dumber and dumber. The OSS community wants users. Everyone I know in the OSS community is typically overjoyed that IBM got on the Linux bandwagon. They're happy that Google is generally OSS-friendly. They love it that more and more OEMs are offering machines with Linux preinstalled.

It's not nearly as biased or misleading as many of the Slashdot crowd want to say it is.With the filing of court documents, a philosophical debate about the proper place for software in society has become a business dispute with the risk of substantial consequences. He's right about this. If I use ExtJS, am I required to either buy a license or open source my entire website? Yes or no? If I modify but do not distribute GPL3 software, must I release my modifications? Yes or no?

GPLv3 most assuredly DOES place restrictions on how you can use the software.

The author is completely correct in his assertion that the GPLv3 is about the software, not the end user. RMS has shouted this very point from the rooftops for decades; only now is it more severely codified in GPLv3.

This article is aimed and business managers, not OSS faithful, or non-pr

A corporate attorney states that businesses which could do certain things under GPL2 cannot do these same things under GPL3 and look at the venom spew. Why all the fuss? He is entirely correct from a legal standpoint to warn business of litigation risk under a clearly more restrictive license.Business adoption of OS has in the past been facilitated by working around the GPL2 restrictions. How the hell do you build a business advantage over a competitor when you are forced to divulge your developments to ev

How the hell do you build a business advantage over a competitor when you are forced to divulge your developments to everybody?

What, competition without state protection? Build a business advantage by being better, cheaper, faster, leaner? That sounds almost like a free market; cant have that, eh?

will GPL3 ruin open source development in the business world

No. It will create problems for free riders and make it easier for good corporate citizens to abide by the GPL because they wont have to worry about their less ethical brethren using it against them.

One corporations proprietary advantage is everyone elses disadvantage; some companies actually realize this and figure that having an advantage for 6 months in one area while their competitors have an advantage in another area for 6 months means they get a clean slate with _both_ advantages at the beginning of the next cycle. Plus their new advantage for that cycle... Moving technology forward much faster and not subject to anyone elses whims.

Linux would not be where it is today without business support

Businesses who have, to a large extent, been part of formulating the GPLv3. The corporate objectors to GPLv3 tend to be more in the non-contributing camp.

From the article:By now, most open source users understand that free refers to freedom, not to price. The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users. You are not free to do whatever you want with the open source software and may find yourself in a legal fight if what you do restricts the freedom of the software.

I disagree with several statements that the author doesn't understand the GPL. While the article does tend toward "scaremongering" I think the author has a pretty fair understanding and is looking forward from a legal point of view and he's a tad nervous about what he sees as potential areas of conflict.

I read it exactly as you did. The author understands the GPL, and its implications, quite well. Trouble is, most FOSS advocates are wilfully blind to those implications, having never run a business that's large enough to have to worry about legal threats.

If I were a PHB, this article alone would be enough to scare me off GPL'd software -- because I would interpret this as a potential threat of unknown magnitude. Remember the average PHB isn't going to distinguish between GPL2 and GPL3, either. A lawsuit against a GPL3 violator WILL be perceived as a lawsuit against ALL companies that use GPL'd software, regardless of which license version. And in at corporate management levels, the perception is what counts.

There is a potential problem in the wording, which the author legitimately points out. The following excerpt from the article (with the quoted portion excerpted from GPL v3) illustrates the problem:

Under the new version of the GPL, the proprietary characteristics of software that step into the ring with open source software are knocked out, unless the proprietary components are "separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the [open source] work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program."

Suppose, for example that a certain open source server program implements some sort of network protocol such that custom client software can communicate with the server and exchange data. Now, it could be argued that even though the programs are completely separate and communicate only over the network via a pro

Looks bad to reply to my own comment, but I had to post a clarification. The definitions section of GPL v3 defines "the program" as follows:

"The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as "you". "Licensees" and "recipients" may be individuals or organizations.

It would therefore be necessary for the protocol itself to also be licensed under the same version of the GPL (possible I suppose, but free software usually implements an existing standard rather than inventing and licensing a new one of their own creation) to trigger the share and share alike rules for proprietary programs which implement the protocol to communicate w

Since the nature of the violation may not be well-understood by the businessmen involved (note that 99.9% of these are NOT coders, let alone FOSS advocates) they will not distinguish between an actual violation, and the threat of lawsuits over what is perceived as a nebulous line between violation and allowed behaviour. Business tends to be extremely conservative about risks, especially risks with fuzzy boundaries. The GPL, especially in its newest incarnation, increases the fuzziness of legal risks surroun

The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users.

I think the author has a pretty fair understanding...

I think the author is intentionally misleading. The freedom is for the users... not the developers. That is to say, OSS benefits the users of software, not the developers. Anyone developing that GPL code is restricted in a way that continues to benefit the users.

The problem this person has is they are characterizing the developers of software as "users" of that code and the only use for code is to extract money from people in exchange for being able to run it. I don't believe this misuse of terms is uni

Anyone else feel like the pooooor proprietary software companies are the equivalent of someone complaining about his birthday presents?

Hey, nobody forces you to use it, you know? You can write your own if you don't like the GPL. Different from patents, the GPL doesn't prevent you from coming up with the exact same thing, on your own time and expense.

I believe that is the exact point the article is trying to make. Businesses may be too keen to think "hey its free! lets use it" without considering the future ramifications that their decisions may have.

EG, the GPLv3 is specifically designed to limit the "set top box" model, as the provider can no longer treat it as a sealed appliance if GPLv3 code is involved (the anti-TiVo clause).

The GPLv3's patent liscence clause is deliberately broad:
A contributor's essential patent claims are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, control includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.

Likewise, the recent lawsuits have made it clear that the FSF crowd has grown more willing to carry the GPL into court, and as another poster mentioned, there is the ExtJS's use of the GPL: Since the Javascript gets into the final product (the page), you can argue that by using ExtJS, your web site page, as rendered, is now GLPv3, the same problem Bison used to have before they changed it from being pure GPL, not to mention the attempt to "atheroize" the GPL because of the "googleization" problem.

And this is a problem for me as the author of a GPLv3'd work how? My deal offered to you was "You can use my work as the basis for yours, but you have to let others do the same thing with yours as you did with mine.". Yes it may put a crimp in your plans to not let anyone else do that, but why as the author should I let you freely use my stuff as the basis for your product without any compensation in return? Just as with anything else, you either pay your supplier the price he wants, negotiate a different d

If a company wants to use software released under the GPL in their own products, hadn't they better understand the licence terms before they start doing anything? What would happen if Microsoft caught Adobe using Excel in parts of Photoshop?(1)

As I see it the creators of some software relesase this software under the GPL, which grants you certain liberties you would not have if the software were released under a more classic closed source commercial licence (think Microsoft/Adobe/Apple...). I think that if you are to use the work of the original creators you should abide by their wishes/terms. If you won't/can't then dont use their work and create your own software doing the same function.

As far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue: it doesn't matter what licence software is released with, you need to understand that licence before using the software in you own products, if at all! The difference between commercial licence and GPL is that the GPL gives you more freedom from the start, while placing certain limits on how much secrecy you can 'afford your products.

Given that this is/. and the number of GPL zealots that there are here, it is no surprise that there are so many responses that tell of, pretty much, functional illiteracy when it comes to reading this article. As has been mentioned above, this is NOT about a misunderstanding about the details of the [L]GPL, but rather a "heads up" about the ramifications of using someone else's work. As in, you better read the fine print on that license. This guy even said exactly that in the article.

The only thing that this guy consistently did wrong was confuse open-source with "free" software (as in RMS's definition, not dictionary). Quite frankly, as an advocate of the BSD license (_not_ a zealot mind you) I'm rather irritated that this guy is lumping me in with the GPL people. No, I'm not like that, I don't want to shove my opinions down "your" throat.

But, welcome to the "us v.s. them" BS that RMS wants.

The thing that I find sad is that when a lot of companies get together to release code under an open-source license, much of the time, it's actually free-er than the GPL. Newlib and Insomniac Games Nocturnal project are two good examples. Not to mention the closed source, non-restrictive libs offered by commercial entities such as Apple and M$. It's kinda sad that I get more freedom as a developer when using closed source libs rather than much of the "open-source" libs out there.

You can say all day long what GPL is *supposed* to mean. But in the end, we've seen many stupid cases where what the lawyers and judges ignorant of technology redefined the entire document by putting a particular spin on a particular section. We see this with the constitution too. There is very little precedent for these documents yet so it is still flexible-- and even when there is precedent, occasionally a random lawyer will think of some new spin- get it to the supreme court in a state or country and have everything overturned.

I generally agree with everyone on our common understanding of GPL myself. But if it is in a lawyer's financial interest to understand it differently, then they will do so.

society Foo is NOT free. it significantly restricts the actions of MURDERERS, RAPISTS and CHILD MOLESTERS. thus it is clearly not free.
laws are not nothing more than anti freedom licensing, and has significantly diminished all our freedoms.
society Bar is a truly free place. it allows anyone to beat anyone else over the head with a cast iron pipe for no reason other than they enjoy doing it. laws that stop people doing what they enjoy is a huge step backwards, IMHO.

I don't think your rant really applies; companies aren't all murders, rapists and child molesters. I would go so far as to say most haven't done any of those things. The GPL isn't functioning as a punishment for violating some law.As a developer, if I want to use GPLv3 code, I'm restricted, right off the bat, whehter or not I have actually done any "harm" to GPL'ed software. Also, you can look at the GPLv3 as a tool to restrict those that did adhere to the terms of v2, but in ways the writers of v2 hadn'

How the hell did you get modded insightful? Laws are not the exclusive province of those that would restrict freedom. The jailing of a murderer GRANTS freedom to the entire non-murdering portion of the population by GRANTING them the freedom to walk in public without fear of getting killed.

Women are free to walk at night because the jailing of the rapist GRANTS that freedom. Society BAR is the society only a maroon (nods to previous genius) would support.

The article provides a nice explanation. Free is Freedom , but not for users (or second party developers), but for Software. The software is free to be developed without restrictions.
The article also explains the so called anti-corporate stance. The article says that it restricts the ability of companies to provide differentiated solutions, which is correct. As long as the differentiation exists only in software and the hardware is non-unique (even if DRM locked down), GPL will level the playing field. T

The article provides a nice explanation. Free is Freedom , but not for users (or second party developers), but for Software. The software is free to be developed without restrictions.<... snip... >
BSD is a free license in the sense that its users are free to do what they want

There appears to be a goodly bit of confusion in this discussion about how the word "users" is employed. Some posts include the word to indicate end users, generally the consumers that purchase the end products and use the software included. Other posts seem to include the word to indicate anyone making use of the software, mostly intimating the developers who would leverage the software as part of producing the end product.

The lack of proper distinction here is causing a real absence of clarity in what people mean. AFAICT, there is as-yet little legal precedent in the US backing up any sort of EULA-type "agreement" that restricts how end users can actually use the end products. Corporations are increasingly trying to dictate various limits, but so far I'm not sure that case law really backs this up. As such, *all* end users are essentially free to do what they want with software under *any* license, within the (admittedly obfuscated, and currently imperiled) bounds of copyright.

Meanwhile, for intermediate users such as developers, there are much more cut-and-dried legal definitions for how and what folks can do. I think TFA is dealing mostly with this aspect (though I haven't completely RTFA). Just in terms of basic ethics, which might well be very foreign territory both for the author of TFA and the PHB target audience, most folks can agree that, if you're essentially selling something that belongs to someone else, that someone else has a say in how you go about doing so.

-----

The assumption that anyone can own what are essentially ideas (i.e. book plots, computer code, artistic designs, etc.) is the foundation of the whole concept of intellectual property. If we accept that such ideas can be owned, then we must accept all the rest of the baggage of ownership that goes with this position -- including the stipulation that selling someone else's things as your own, without proper permission, is in violation of property rights.

The GPL in all its various forms simply attempts to define that proper permission. If folks don't like what such permission entails, fine -- bloody well don't use GPL-covered code. They're still completely free to develop their own code that does what they need it to (note that I'm totally ignoring the whole issue of patents, which is plenty of grist for another mill or twenty). Whining about not getting a free ride just makes people look like wankers. Whine, whine, whinge. Meh.

there is as-yet little legal precedent in the US backing up any sort of EULA-type "agreement" that restricts how end users can actually use the end products.

Not true, but oft-cited on Slashdot. There are a number of cases at district court levels that have backed EULAs and a few appellate court cases too.

The ones that lose are typically those that impose huge burdens on the consumer: changes in law, venue, arbitration, etc. A recent case placed a limit on non-transfer clause, but the court hinted that the o

The article provides a nice explanation. Free is Freedom , but not for users (or second party developers), but for Software. The software is free to be developed without restrictions.

It is freedom for users, but specifically freedom for other users, not necessarily you. The only thing the GPL prevents you from doing is giving downstream users of GPL code less freedom than you were given by that GPL code.

You can use GPL code however you want, it explicitly states it is not a usage license. What you can't do is distribute GPL code in a manner that gives those who receive it less freedom that it gave you.

BSD gives you the right to give, GPL gives you the right to receiving.

Since I've been modded "troll" already, and since you've taken at least a civil enough tone, I'll try to clarify what I mean.Free is Freedom, except for people with whom the FSF and RMS disagree with on whatever principle they're trying to stand on. Much of the additions to the GPL from v2 to v3 have to do with issues arising from how certain people USED GPLv2 software. The likes of RMS have political ax to grind, and it shows up in the GPL3.

No one is pissed about any USE of GPL2 software. It's the distribution they care about. Freedom 0 is the right to use the software, and that applies no matter how you plan to use it. Distributing it in such a way that you remove Freedom 0 from other users is a different matter.

If you want code open, then let it be open. If you want to control how or who uses your code, then don't make it free. At least be intellectually honest about it. The result of GPL3 is exactly the same as a EULA that restricts who and how software is run.

Nope. You're confusing "use/run" with "distribute". The GPLv3, like the GPLv2 and most other open source licenses, restricts how you may distribute the code, not how you may use it.

The GPLv3 is no more or less "intellectually honest" than the GPLv2 was, and the "political ax" is no different. The agenda of the GPL was, and is, to give end users the freedom to modify the software, redistribute their changed versions, and put those changed versions to effective use. The changes in the GPLv3 are there because some companies figured out a way to sneak around that last one.

In this case, RMS is wrong. If RMS was truly about "Free" as in "freedom" he would have chosen BSD style license, which has even less restrictions.

Maybe you should let him define what "free" means to him instead of substituting your own definition. Come on, you might as well be complaining that the BSD license takes away your "freedom" to distribute the software without a copyright notice or to use the authors' names in your advertising.

I even go further and will predict to you that GPL4 will be even more restrictive as people figure out ways around the restrictions of GPL3 that RMS doesn't like. Care to make a wager?

If by "RMS doesn't like" you mean "subvert the intended goals of the GPL", then I agree with your prediction. Is that supposed to be a surprise?

Don't like Tivo cause you can't "hack" it? Then don't buy one. Build your own instead, using the EXACT SAME GPL software Tivo uses. How come this isn't good enough for people like RMS is beyond me.

I suspect this will fall on deaf ears, but WTH...

RMS's defining moment was when his printer wouldn't work. The printer driver had a bug and he could not fix it because the driver's source code was not available.

This was his printer (well technically his department's) and yet he was dead in the water - there was nothing he could do to fix it. Buying another printer was not an option - the money had been spent. Sure he could try to reverse engineer and printer driver from scratch and write it correctly. But with no guarantee of success that sure sounds like a poor way to do things.

So he decided that such a situation sucks, sucks big time, and so he decided to make a difference and change the way the world works so that other people would not find themselves in such a situation.

THAT's why "build your own tivo" is not good enough for people like RMS.

Version 3 of the GPL merely adds a few requirements to those of previous versions in order for someone to *distribute* the licensed work. There's no change at all for users. It continues to protect the 4 freedoms, so is clearly a free software license.

Your definition of freedom is curious. By that definition, you value the particular freedom "to take away people's freedom" the most. Sure, you're less free in some twisted sense without that, but I think freedom is only freedom if it is inalienable, thus if you have the right to take away other's freedom, then you're not free anyway, even though more is allowed.

A free software environment that significantly restricts other people from making it less free, that's all is what GPLv2 or v3 is all about. You'

If I release code under BSD, that code is always under BSD. If someone else releases a new product based on my code, they have to admit it -- but they can keep their code to themselves if they so wish.

I haven't lost anything, because no one took MY code and told me I couldn't use it anymore. Likewise, I didn't *TAKE AWAY* their ability to do what they wanted with THEIR WORK.

No freedom is lost under BSD.

Under GPL, if someone uses my code to do something else, then their code effectively becomes my code as well, and they have to play by my rules. Therefore, I am restricting their ability to access control over their own time and creative works. I have effectively limited the other developer.

"End users" by the definition probably don't give a crap if they can see the code. If they did anything with it, they'd be developers. I don't see how end users lose out either way -- license arguments really only affect other developers.... not that I'm biased or anything (checks name again)... nope, not biased at all...

As mentioned in a previous post, freedom can be bad. If I have the freedom to kill you and steal your wallet without consequence, is that really better? GPL and BSD licenses are both good in certain situations, but they both fail in others. Get over yourself, this isn't a holy war.

Under BSD, you're free to make software. Under GPL, you're free to make free software. Under BSD, you're saying: "Do whatever you want with my code, I don't care". Under GPL, you're saying: "Here is this software I've written, you can use and modify it all you want, but if you distribute it, you need to guarantee the same level of freedom to those who receive the software that you have received". BSD thinks in gratis code, GPL thinks in a free software ecosystem.

Users want to develop on the code aswell. Users can be companies, experienced software developers and even regular old Joe, who just wants to have an annoying bug fixed in his favorite software package. The nonexistent distinction between users and developers is exactly the reason why BSD is less free than GPL.

"Here is this software I've written, you can use and modify it all you want, but if you distribute it, you need to guarantee the same level of freedom to those who receive the software that you have received".

GPL2 was about the code, not who or what or how it was used. The GPL said if you make changes, and distribute the code, distribute the changes as well. It was to benefit the community by making sure that the code was being improved, would be given back to the community.

Something changed in GPL3, where code becomes almost secondary to how the code is used. It no longer cares about the code, or changes to it. It cares more about who, how, and what it is being used for.

No matter if you agree with the changes or not, you have to admit that the changes have nothing to do with improving the code, because GPL2 already handled this perfectly fine.

The changes have nothing to do with improving the code, which makes the changes philosophical, and restrictive.

"End users" by the definition probably don't give a crap if they can see the code. If they did anything with it, they'd be developers. I don't see how end users lose out either way -- license arguments really only affect other developers....

They don't care until $APPLICATION_THEY_DEPEND_ON stops being maintained or the manufacturer of $EXPENSIVE_HARDWARE_THEY_BOUGHT decides it needs more money so the people that bought its hardware should better move on and buy a new $EXPENSIVE_HARDWARE_THEY_BOUGHT and, to `motivate' them, stops releasing drivers...

End users do not care about licenses in the same way as people being subjected to experimental drugs unwillingly do not care: they do not know they care.

The problem is that even after the average end user KNOWS they care, they don't have the ability to do anything about it GPL3 or no.

That's rather irrelevant.

Without the GPL or equivalent approaches, it is impossible to do anything. With it, you have at least the possibilty of doing something. It is irrelevant whether `doing something' means `hiring the only person in the world capable of doing something' or something else.

No licencing scheme is going to magically turn everyone into people capable of doing what they want.

But by creating the need for "license compatibility," I have already exercised control over their code -- I have dictated the terms of the license.

No, you are exercising control of the distribution of your code, not their code. They are free to distribute their code however the want, but if they want to distribute your code, they have to do so by your rules. The BSD license is not any different in this regard, they just have fewer rules.

That license then gives me unfettered access to their changes to my code, which I can accept or reject. That is another flexing of control.

No, it only gives you access to their code if they distribute to you. If they don't give you a binary, they don't have to give you the source.

GPL 3 is nothing more than anti corporate licensing, and has significantly diminished us all.

Tell that to frustrated Tivo users. Don't like GPL3 software? Use software with a BSD license. But getting the code and locking it in so that users can't modify THEIR software inside your box, isn't what we could consider "freedom".

You're still thinking commercially. ALL software should be free. The only reason why companies use "secret" software is so that they can implement their proprietary extensions and charge for them.

If a company does not sell (or provide) any software, but rather some service that isn't easy to duplicate, programmers can get paid regardless of whether all software is free or not. Customization and integration, as well as development of internal specialty software are not likely to stop even if all software would be made free.

It seems the lawyer gets some of it, GPLed software truly is free software.

As far as BSD vs GPL, they are both open source licenses for free software but they both have their restrictions. If you don't consider GPLed software to be free software then BSD licensed software is not free either as there are still restrictions, i.e. you cannot remove copyrights from the code and claim it to be your own.

The BSD license is more acceptable to businesses who see open source as a resource to be harvested but never invested in. The GPL is not and is designed to keep the software free. Does this mean the GPL in any of its forms is "anti corporate licensing"? Absolutely not, it simply enforces the give and take nature of open source, it in no way stops corporations from using the software to enhance their business as long as they are not in the business of leeching free software and attempting to create false monopolies and false supply limitations with the same software.

Really I find the entire anti-GPL fray to be an outlandish waste of time and effort, the GPL is not forced on anyone, if you don't like the license then stop coveting the code, pay the cost and develop your own stinking code.

the GPL 3 license is NOT free software. It significantly restricts CERTAIN people from using it, thus is clearly NOT FREE.

It doesn't restrict anyone from USING it.

It prevents 'other people' from RESTRICTING you from using it. If YOU are those 'other people', it prevents you from preventing other people from using it.

BSD is truly free license

Yeah it is, if you are lucky enough to get something BSD licensed. No guarantee that's going to happen even if all the projects it was based on were BSD, it might be all locked up proprietary when you obtain a derivative software.

People who write GPL software want the end users to be able to modify and redistribute the software. That's freedom. And the GPL ensures that goal is met.

What freedom do you get with the 'truly free' BSD? You get the 'freedom' to restrict people further down the line so that they can't modify or redistribute the software. Ever wonder what people 'down the line' think of this truly free BSD software? Oh wait... they didn't get any. By the time the software got to them it wasn't BSD anymore, it wasn't free anymore.

I thought the aspect relating GPL_3 and web page design bares some attention so. I can see scenarios where use of software using the GPL_3 becomes actually impossible; if I have implemented closed source software for part of my site it might become impossible for me to use open source on others because I either don't have source code to give or am contractually obligated to keep it secret.
As far as "we have to wait and see what the courts will say" the article is actually informative.

The GPLv3 doesn't require you to make source code available for web services. The related Affero GPL versions 2 and 3 do, however, since some web developers thought this was a loophole in the GPL. RMS didn't seem to think it was, but instead the FSF reviewed the Affero license and authorized its use of the name GPL as well.

The Affero GPL is fairly uncommon as far as I know, but as long as you keep to the GPL and away from the Affero GPL, you should be fine.

What part of having the open source software and doing whatever you can with it to benefit your own company is denied? Nothing. It's a matter of distribution. Nothing at all is stopping you from making changes for your own companies use and not giving it to anyone else. If you sell it to someone (thus commercial), then it is an entirely different ballgame.

The part where the company wants to develop a proprietary system, hardware or software, and sell it. You know, the part that bit TIVO in the ass.

In the first paragraph, the author acknowledges that the scope of the article does not include the changes between GPLv2 and v3.

? When you do RTFA, note the 6th and 7th paragraphs, from which I quote:

Under prior versions of the GPL, it was generally accepted that open source and proprietary software could peacefully coexist.... Under the new version of the GPL, the proprietary characteristics of software that step into the ring with open source software are knocked out.... Changes in the GPL impose other limits on the ability to leverage a proprietary position when open source is involved. Under the new version of the GPL....

Clueless post, more like.

Do I disagree or agree with the article? Doesn't matter. Though I really do like the closing paragraph:

With the new GPL in place, free software advocates seem willing and able to take action. You should make sure that the use of open source software is ready for the challenge.

Mod parent DOWN.
The author is highlighting the fact that GPLv3 is largely incompatible with proprietary software.
Furthermore, he offers a prudent warning on patent use with regards to the legal landscape.
Regardless of what you think you know the GPLv3 says, nobody knows for sure until a court rules on it. Judges are lawyers. Lawyers are asked all the time "what do you think a judge will say". Lawyers use the same criteria judges do to render an opinion. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, most of the time the question is never tested.
The article is NOT FUD. It is a qualified attempt to quantify risks.

"The author is highlighting the fact that GPLv3 is largely incompatible with proprietary software."

Not really - most of the text seems to be claiming that it's incompatible with commercial use, which is the opposite of most peoples' interpretation.

(this is achieved in the article by suggesting that commercial anything requires placing restrictions on other peoples' software)

There are plenty of clues that this article differs substantially from the plain language of the GPL, for example suggestions that you could be sued for merely using the software (what does freedom 0 say again?)

I don't think so. This is an article for lawyers. Of course, Intellectual Property is well understood amongst lawyers. However, most lawyers are only acquainted with using IP for commercial advantage. This shouldn't be a surprise because most lawyers work for organisations that seek commercial success. What is surprising is how few lawyers are acquainted with idea that anyone would try to use IP to prevent someone else from abusing their altruism. For lack of a better word, there is "friction" between

Horsepuckey. OSS is all about protecting and creating wealth and making gobs of money.

I spent 2 years building an embedded panel. We could have bought some proprietary software and gone on from there. Instead we used linux, elinks, and some open source libs. We also used open hardware, and even sponsored the development of additional hardware. All of that allowed us to bring a full-fledged completely industry standard control panel that's ethernet enabled, has an industry standard web server built in, is easily field modifiable, and, best of all, has no license fees. Our competition uses proprietary technology. They have a 300 baud serial connection. We have wifi, 100 mbit ethernet, and web connectivity - all for about the same investment up front, with about the same hardware costs, and we pay no royalties.

you write the software once and can sell a billion copies with no overhead costs to you. Do you think dell or apple can sell a million computers without buying a million computer cases? if everyone was a millionare how much would a loaf of bread cost?

Software by it's very nature means unlimited supply of the product thus making it worthless. Novell, IBM, Red Hat, etc are making Billions by not selling software, but by selling the service, and customization of said software for particular needs.